NationStates Jolt Archive

As a former neutral country during the 2nd World War and onece its borders were threatend by the axis then and only then did it decide to bend over and let the allies in. So as far as if and when it should joint EU i think there should be a deomcratic vote amongst the first memebers. As seen by all the EU is becoming a flee market for every unwanted and econmicaly unstable country, i suppose history hasnt taught the EU leaders very much since the EU idea was proposed and enforced in the past.
We all know what happened to that idea.

So i guess my view is the EU should take a breath and deal with problems within its borders and not creat new ones. The global economic market is that which we have all felt. I guess we all have that little neuron in our brain wich almost every day of the hour reminds us all that our economy is not what it should be.

To restate what I said earlier:

Absolutely no. Never. No no no.

Why?
-Dismal economy
-Entirely different culture, very different from the European one (and no, conquering certain European nations for a while does NOT make you European). Many would love to make the Ottoman Empire seem like some kind of multi-cultural paradise. Please. Get real. :)
-Terrible Human Rights record
-Illegal occupation of parts of and non-recognition of an EU member state
-Against the will of the majority of the EU citizenry; France and Netherlands rejected the Constitution partly because of disatisfaction of not having been allowed to vote on Turkey's entry. Again, this alone is enough to say no.
-Large Muslim population, many of which support hardline Islamic beliefs. With the current problems the EU is facing with some of its Muslim populations, exacerbating the problem is an idiotic policy. With its large population it could easily undermine core EU beliefs and erode EU ideological commitments.
-A historical enemy of Russia; Russia would distance itself even more from the EU should Turkey enter. Russia is valuable. Turkey is not. Want cheap labour? Russia has it. Want a large population boost? Again, Russia has it. Want vast resources? Russia. Russia needs to improve its democratic practices, but I would much rather see it than Turkey in the EU. Norway would also distance itself. Not a good idea.
-An American pawn. This alone would have me reject this Trojan Horse ab initio. Until it stops being an American pawn, it should never be allowed entry into the EU.

The EU's expansion is not limitless. Turkey should and, I hope, will not enter. If it does, moving to Norway seems to be a great option.

Essentially, I agree with you. Some of the states the EU is considering acceeding are small states, even if they are poor, and allowing them entry may resolve strong ethnic conflicts in their region. Thus, their accession will cost the EU little and perhaps benefit it much. Allowing a large, poor country in at this point? No.

To restate what I said earlier:

Absolutely no. Never. No no no.

Why?
-Dismal economy
-Entirely different culture, very different from the European one (and no, conquering certain European nations for a while does NOT make you European). Many would love to make the Ottoman Empire seem like some kind of multi-cultural paradise. Please. Get real. :)
-Terrible Human Rights record
-Illegal occupation of parts of and non-recognition of an EU member state
-Against the will of the majority of the EU citizenry; France and Netherlands rejected the Constitution partly because of disatisfaction of not having been allowed to vote on Turkey's entry. Again, this alone is enough to say no.
-Large Muslim population, many of which sup:eek: port hardline Islamic beliefs. With the current problems the EU is facing with some of its Muslim populations, exacerbating the problem is an idiotic policy. With its large population it could easily undermine core EU beliefs and erode EU ideological commitments.
-A historical enemy of Russia; Russia would distance itself even more from the EU should Turkey enter. Russia is valuable. Turkey is not. Want cheap labour? Russia has it. Want a large population boost? Again, Russia has it. Want vast resources? Russia. Russia needs to improve its democratic practices, but I would much rather see it than Turkey in the EU. Norway would also distance itself. Not a good idea.
-An American pawn. This alone would have me reject this Trojan Horse ab initio. Until it stops being an American pawn, it should never be allowed entry into the EU.

The EU's expansion is not limitless. Turkey should and, I hope, will not enter. If it does, moving to Norway seems to be a great option.

Essentially, I agree with you. Some of the states the EU is considering acceeding are small states, even if they are poor, and allowing them entry may resolve strong ethnic conflicts in their region. Thus, their accession will cost the EU little and perhaps benefit it much. Allowing a large, poor country in at this point? No.


More voices should be heard !!!

No. They have a quite dismal human rights record. If they improved this, I would see no reason not to allow them in. Turkey has been a very influential force in European history.

Norway would also distance itself. Not a good idea.

What does Norway have against Turkey?

No. They have a quite dismal human rights record. If they improved this, I would see no reason not to allow them in. Turkey has been a very influential force in European history.

Influential in positive sense or negative one?, i am not to sure that the Serbs,Greeks, Bulgars, etc would agree oh and lets not forget the Armenians.

What does Norway have against Turkey?
Norway doesn't want to join the EU because it thinks (and perhaps, rightly so) that doing so would endanger its economy. Adding a large poor nation will definitely not make Norway any more thrilled about joining the EU.

Influential in positive sense or negative one?, i am not to sure that the Serbs,Greeks, Bulgars, etc would agree oh and lets not forget the Armenians.

Does it matter? The fact is that they are a part of Europe historically, good or bad. France and Germany haven't always been good influences on Europe, but they've been allowed in.

No. They have a quite dismal human rights record. If they improved this, I would see no reason not to allow them in. Turkey has been a very influential force in European history.
And the British Empire was very influential in global history. So should it be allowed to join the USA, or China, or Australia, or Canada, or any one of the nations it conquered? Or should Spain be able to allow its colonies to join the EU merely because it created them? Turkey has been influential, although in very negative ways.

Norway doesn't want to join the EU because it thinks (and perhaps, rightly so) that doing so would endanger its economy. Adding a large poor nation will definitely not make Norway any more thrilled about joining the EU.

Well, to be honest, Norway's not exactly teetering on the edge of joining. As far back as they are, what's the harm in pushing them a little further back?

Influential in positive sense or negative one?, i am not to sure that the Serbs,Greeks, Bulgars, etc would agree oh and lets not forget the Armenians.

Well if we look at it that way, what about Spain, then? I'm sure the Moors would be against their membership, but they're all dead.

...hell, i'm sure I can Godwin this thread too...

Does it matter? The fact is that they are a part of Europe historically, good or bad. France and Germany haven't always been good influences on Europe, but they've been allowed in.
Not good enough. Greece in ancient times conquered Persia (modern Iran), and left a mark that lasts to this day. Does this make Iran any more European? :rolleyes:

Does it matter? The fact is that they are a part of Europe historically, good or bad. France and Germany haven't always been good influences on Europe, but they've been allowed in.

But Germany and France have a common bond despite past wars, as do most european antions to one degree or another, list for me what the Europeans have in common with turkey on a historical and social level (apart from the fact we are all human, kebabs and football)

Not good enough. Greece in ancient times conquered Persia (modern Iran), and left a mark that lasts to this day. Does this make Iran any more European? :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with anything? Russia once conquered Mongolia, too. Turkey has played a major role in European history and is traditionally seen as the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. Perhaps you've heard of the Byzantine Empire?

What does that have to do with anything? Russia once conquered Mongolia, too. Turkey has played a major role in European history and is traditionally seen as the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. Perhaps you've heard of the Byzantine Empire?
That was created by Constantine, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, conquered by Turkey. Yes. I can see how Turkey contributed positively. If you think that Greece and Turkey were united under the Ottoman Empire, please do some research. Greece, the Baltic nations and Austria have a very bitter taste left by Turkey.

But Germany and France have a common bond despite past wars, as do most european antions to one degree or another, list for me what the Europeans have in common with turkey on a historical and social level (apart from the fact we are all human, kebabs and football)

Well you tell me what the Dutch and the Slovaks have in common, besides being conquered by Germany once. Or the Swedes and the Greeks. Or the English and the Croatians. I could go on and on. If we're going to use lack of common bonds to exclude Turkey, then the EU should be dismantled, because not all the nations have common bonds with one another. However, Turkey does have very close bonds with the Balkans, good and bad.

And the British Empire was very influential in global history. So should it be allowed to join the USA, or China, or Australia, or Canada, or any one of the nations it conquered? Or should Spain be able to allow its colonies to join the EU merely because it created them? Turkey has been influential, although in very negative ways.

Well, they aren't European, are they? Stupid question. Istanbul is in fact, part of continental Europe, and has some 11 million residents - more than the population of some other EU member nations.

I don't care to get into whether or not Turkeys influence was negative. I can't really think of too many examples of a major European state being a positive influence on the world in earlier times...

Well if we look at it that way, what about Spain, then? I'm sure the Moors would be against their membership, but they're all dead.

...hell, i'm sure I can Godwin this thread too...

And the people that have suffered from turkish oppression are still around, i read somewhere that many kurds are in favour of joining the EU as it would force ANkara to substantially change its policies towards the Kurds and there dreams of autonomy (and in some cases independence).

As for the Moors are not all dead, while many indeed died during the reconquista there were also numbers that converted and became i suppose Andalucians, and many that were expelled (oh yes the jews were not the only ones to be exiled by the spanish) to north Africa, you go to morocco and you still find moroccan muslim families with names like Guzman or Perez (i.e spanish names).

However, Turkey does have very close bonds with the Balkans, good and bad.
Bad. Mostly very bad. Many of the nations still detest Turkey for forcing Islam on to them and treating them like mongrels, as well as killing thousands of their natives.

That was created by Constantine, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, conquered by Turkey. Yes. I can see how Turkey contributed positively. If you think that Greece and Turkey were united under the Ottoman Empire, please do some research. Greece, the Baltic nations and Austria have a very bitter taste left by Turkey.

I know that. I know my European history, thank you. But your reasons for excluding Turkey could easily be applied to other nations currently in the EU. I guarantee you that Poland still has a very bitter taste left by Germany, yet no one calls for Germany's exclusion.

Human rights should be the deciding factor. Once they've decided to meet the qualifications for admission, they should be admitted, whether or not some of the nations in the EU have animosity towards Turkey. The whole idea is to be inclusive and work out differences for a greater goal, is it not?

Greece, the Baltic nations and Austria have a very bitter taste left by Turkey.

Balkan nations, you mean? :p

Well, they aren't European, are they? Stupid question. Istanbul is in fact, part of continental Europe, and has some 11 million residents - more than the population of some other EU member nations.
Who was not European? The Byzantines or the Turks? The former were most definitely European. "Istanbul" was once the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and was called Costantinople. Greece still demands its return.

I don't care to get into whether or not Turkeys influence was negative. I can't really think of too many examples of a major European state being a positive influence on the world in earlier times...
Don't expect people to sympathise with negative influences though.

I know that. I know my European history, thank you. But your reasons for excluding Turkey could easily be applied to other nations currently in the EU. I guarantee you that Poland still has a very bitter taste left by Germany, yet no one calls for Germany's exclusion.
Except Germany is a founding member of the EU.

Human rights should be the deciding factor. Once they've decided to meet the qualifications for admission, they should be admitted, whether or not some of the nations in the EU have animosity towards Turkey. The whole idea is to be inclusive and work out differences for a greater goal, is it not?
And if the majority of EU citizens say No?

Bad. Mostly very bad. Many of the nations still detest Turkey for forcing Islam on to them and treating them like mongrels, as well as killing thousands of their natives.

And a lot of nations still resent what Germany did to them during WWII. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people still resent what Austria and Hungary did to them during their domination of the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Slovenians, Croatians, etc. And the peoples of the former Yugoslavia still hate each other. Considering all this animosity, maybe we should just disband the EU.

Balkan nations, you mean? :p
Yes. Thanks for the correction.

Well, they aren't European, are they? Stupid question. Istanbul is in fact, part of continental Europe, and has some 11 million residents...
And it used to be multi cultural city filled with many Greeks and Armenians until it was 'cleansed' by the turks.

And a lot of nations still resent what Germany did to them during WWII. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people still resent what Austria and Hungary did to them during their domination of the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Slovenians, Croatians, etc. And the peoples of the former Yugoslavia still hate each other. Considering all this animosity, maybe we should just disband the EU.
Except Germany was one of the founding members. These nations actually want to join the EU. Once they are in the EU, they can block out nations they don't favour. I'm sorry, but historic association does not make it European.

And if the majority of EU citizens say No?

Then whatever. But if they meet all the standards that other EU members had to meet, and you still vote them out, don't sit here and say it's because they're not European when it's really just your fear of Islam.

And the people that have suffered from turkish oppression are still around, i read somewhere that many kurds are in favour of joining the EU as it would force ANkara to substantially change its policies towards the Kurds and there dreams of autonomy (and in some cases independence).

And there are Polish, Lithuanians, French, etc. that suffered from German oppression and are still around. Your point?

As for the Kurdish question, that is my primary reason for saying they aren't eligible to join the EU. If they fix that and stop the abuses, they're qualified to join.


As for the Moors are not all dead, while many indeed died during the reconquista there were also numbers that converted and became i suppose Andalucians, and many that were expelled (oh yes the jews were not the only ones to be exiled by the spanish) to north Africa, you go to morocco and you still find moroccan muslim families with names like Guzman or Perez (i.e spanish names).

Yes, I know that. However, as a culture and nationality, they are for all intents and purposes dead. I don't hear much about the Granadan secessionist movement nowadays. ;)

And there are Polish, Lithuanians, French, etc. that suffered from German oppression and are still around. Your point?

As for the Kurdish question, that is my primary reason for saying they aren't eligible to join the EU. If they fix that and stop the abuses, they're qualified to join.
Until they rectify their entire Human Rights record and stop being an American pawn, they should not enter.

Then whatever. But if they meet all the standards that other EU members had to meet, and you still vote them out, don't sit here and say it's because they're not European when it's really just your fear of Islam.
Read the full list of reasons I gave. You have still to prove that they are European, beyond historical association, which on its own is inadequate.

Except Germany was one of the founding members. These nations actually want to join the EU. Once they are in the EU, they can block out nations they don't favour. I'm sorry, but historic association does not make it European.

Irrelevant. If the exclusion of Turkey is based on "bad feelings", then apply that standard fairly.

And I suppose I was unaware there was a homogenous "European" identity.

Until they rectify their entire Human Rights record and stop being an American pawn, they should not enter.

And that's fine. That's more than enough reason to exclude them. If they can't meet the standards of admission, keep them out. But don't make "they're not European enough" or "other nations don't like them" standards of admission.

Irrelevant. If the exclusion of Turkey is based on "bad feelings", then apply that standard fairly.

And I suppose I was unaware there was a homogenous "European" identity.
Hardly irrelevant. As one of its members, Germany has a say in who can enter while its an EU member. Its on the inside, not the outside.

The Turks conquered a European empire. I don't see how that makes them European.

Yes, I know that. However, as a culture and nationality, they are for all intents and purposes dead. I don't hear much about the Granadan secessionist movement nowadays. ;)

But there is an Andalucian succesionist movement, calling for more autonomy or outright independence form Madrid, my wifes family are andalucian and they acknowledge the fact thet as a people have a mixture of Iberian, Moorish and in some cases Jewish heritage and as a result see themselves firstly as Andalucian.

As for Granada there is a small but growing group of spanish muslim converts that have established a community in Granada, dunno how big it is but they are there, not to sure they are popular with the locals mindyou.

Read the full list of reasons I gave. You have still to prove that they are European, beyond historical association, which on its own is inadequate.

I don't have to prove anything. There's no uniform European identity that can be used to judge their Europeanness. It's a bullshit qualification.

Who was not European? The Byzantines or the Turks? The former were most definitely European. "Istanbul" was once the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and was called Costantinople. Greece still demands its return.

It was in response to:


And the British Empire was very influential in global history. So should it be allowed to join the USA, or China, or Australia, or Canada, or any one of the nations it conquered? Or should Spain be able to allow its colonies to join the EU merely because it created them?


Until they rectify their entire Human Rights record and stop being an American pawn, they should not enter.

I should have made it clearer: by "stopping the abuses" I meant all of their human rights abuses.

As for the latter point, perhaps you should kick Britain out then. ;)

(I joke, but...)

And that's fine. That's more than enough reason to exclude them. If they can't meet the standards of admission, keep them out. But don't make "they're not European enough" or "other nations don't like them" standards of admission.
I am not using that as a reason to say they should stay out. I am using it against those who would call Turkey a European nation regardless of entry to the EU.

Personally, being British I'm fed up with the country paying out for France becauce of the C.A.P., and Turkish farming is by all accounts even less effeciant than the French. Therefore, Turkey joining makes bad economic sense for us.

I don't have to prove anything. There's no uniform European identity that can be used to judge their Europeanness. It's a bullshit qualification.
Had they not conquered the Byzantine Empire, do you think anyone would even call them European? They derived from Mongolia, whereas most Europeans were residents of the European continent. And, like it or not, a European culture is forming, based on common ideologies and notions, such as the protection of Human Rights and freedom of speech.

I am not using that as a reason to say they should stay out. I am using it against those who would call Turkey a European nation regardless of entry to the EU.

How can you say that? In the absence of a uniform European identity, what else do we have to judge European, besides close historical association?

But there is an Andalucian succesionist movement, calling for more autonomy or outright independence form Madrid, my wifes family are andalucian and they acknowledge the fact thet as a people have a mixture of Iberian, Moorish and in some cases Jewish heritage and as a result see themselves firstly as Andalucian.

As for Granada there is a small but growing group of spanish muslim converts that have established a community in Granada, dunno how big it is but they are there, not to sure they are popular with the locals mindyou.

Nevertheless the original Moors are a dead culture. Just like the Vikings, despite that silly pagan religious revival in some places. This is going away from my original point though. Pretty much all European nations have committed some gross human rights abuses in the past. Turkey, as well as all other European nations, should be judged on their present record. At the moment, their record stinks. But there is no reason why they shouldn't be permitted to join in the future should they rectify this.

How can you say that? In the absence of a uniform European identity, what else do we have to judge European, besides close historical association?
Its based on the assumption that the Ottoman Empire was a European Empire, which it was not. It conquered parts of a European empire, most of which extended into Asia. European Empires did have some common traits. Most derived from Rome (which stretched widely across Europe), most used Greek or Latin as the basis of their languages (even Russian is based on Cyrillic, which is based on Greek), and most espoused some form of Christianity.

Had they not conquered the Byzantine Empire, do you think anyone would even call them European? They derived from Mongolia, whereas most Europeans were residents of the European continent. And, like it or not, a European culture is forming, based on common ideologies and notions, such as the protection of Human Rights and freedom of speech.

Again, irrelevant. How recently did Russia or Germany enter the European consciousness? After Turkey had.

Based on those qualifications, Canada and Australia ought to be admitted to the EU.

Said it before and think its an important part of any discussion about Turkey joining the UN.
Turkey is a secular state by the power of the military. Kemal Mustapha made a secular state but the only way to make sure it would stay that way was by giving the army special powers.
Whenever a muslim party comes to power and is a bit too radical, the Army revolts and starts new elections, the last time this happened was in 1982. Currently the muslim AK party rules but this party has been very careful with religious affairs.
If they join the EU, the Army would loose the power given by Kemal and an extremist muslim party could take over. The west has the impression that Turkey became a modern state in the 20th century but the recent muder of a Italian Christian priest by a radical 16-year old muslim proves that many parts of the Turkish population are still controlled by Islam in their daily life.
Turkey is potentially dangerous as a member of the EU, hence why it shouldnt become a member.

Offcourse there are also such things as the refusal to acknowledge the Armenian massacres. Turkey was also prepared to invade Iraq to make sure the Kurds wouldnt become to powerful after the fall of Saddam, another (recent) problem that speaks against them, as Kurds still dont have the same rights as Turks in Turkey.

Nevertheless the original Moors are a....(snip)

But what does turkey offer the EU that we are not already receving from the newly joined nations of eastern europe?

Its based on the assumption that the Ottoman Empire was a European Empire, which it was not. It conquered parts of a European empire, most of which extended into Asia. European Empires did have some common traits. Most derived from Rome, most used Greek or Latin as the basis of their languages, and most espoused some form of Christianity.

And we find the crux of your argument. Christianity. None of your qualifications have been able to be applied to the whole of "Europe" until just now. At least you're finally being honest.

Again, irrelevant. How recently did Russia or Germany enter the European consciousness? After Turkey had.

Based on those qualifications, Canada and Australia ought to be admitted to the EU.
They would be more than welcome to.

And we find the crux of your argument. Christianity. None of your qualifications have been able to be applied to the whole of "Europe" until just now. At least you're finally being honest.
And Greco-roman/germanic civilisation. You seem to ignore it quite readily. By the 15th Century, all European Empires had greco/roman/germanic origin in common, as well as Christianity. Like it or not, these were defining features.

Said it before and think its an important part of any discussion about Turkey joining the UN.

I don't think there has been any disagreement that Turkey shouldn't be allowed into the EU right now. The disagreement is that some people think that, were Turkey to reform, they should be allowed in, while others say that under no circumstances should Turkey be admitted.

And we find the crux of your argument. Christianity. None of your qualifications have been able to be applied to the whole of "Europe" until just now. At least you're finally being honest.

But much of the cultures of europe have christianity at the core or at least part of the core of there identities even in this era of secularism, this cannot be removed frmo european nations and like it or not the majority of europeans do not want Turkey allowed in.

And Greco-roman/germanic civilisation. You seem to ignore it quite readily.

I ignore it because it's crap. What part of Greco-Roman civlization do Sweden or Poland maintain?

I ignore it because it's crap. What part of Greco-Roman civlization do Sweden or Poland maintain?
Move on to Germanic then. Germanic culture fused with greco/roman by the end of the Roman Empire. Slavic culture is largely a product of Byzantine activity in eastern Europe.

And Greco-roman/germanic civilisation. You seem to ignore it quite readily.

I can think of quite a few East European nations in the EU that don't fit that definition.


But what does turkey offer the EU that we are not already receving from the newly joined nations of eastern europe?

Kebabs. *nods*

I can think of quite a few East European nations in the EU that don't fit that definition.

Kebabs. *nods*
Like? Most of their cultures derive from Byzantine efforts to civilise Eastern Europe.

They would be more than welcome to.

Then your Europeanness argument falls on its ass. If democracy and free speech and human rights are the qualifications for admission, then plenty of non-European nations could be admitted. Japan, for example. Now, if Turkey reforms itself and meets those standards, why can't they join? If non-European nations can meet the standards and be admitted, why not Turkey?

Then your Europeanness argument falls on its ass. If democracy and free speech and human rights are the qualifications for admission, then plenty of non-European nations could be admitted. Japan, for example. Now, if Turkey reforms itself and meets those standards, why can't they join? If non-European nations can meet the standards and be admitted, why not Turkey?
Canada and Australia were both founded by European nations though, weren't they?

Move on to Germanic then. Germanic culture fused with greco/roman by the end of the Roman Empire. Slavic culture is largely a product of Byzantine activity in eastern Europe.

You're just extending your definitions when I poke holes in them. Neither Poland nor Sweden have Germanic culture. Polish culture has nothing to do with Byzantine influence. Neither would Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukranian, etc. etc.

Canada and Australia were both founded by European nations though, weren't they?

Then how about Japan? Japan certainly meets the definitions you laid out.

Then how about Japan? Japan certainly meets the definitions you laid out.
I would readily welcome Japan in, though I doubt it would ever join, mainly out of national pride.

You're just extending your definitions when I poke holes in them. Neither Poland nor Sweden have Germanic culture. Polish culture has nothing to do with Byzantine influence. Neither would Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukranian, etc. etc.
Sweden eventually adopted the predominant continent culture though didn't it? And the Teutonic Knights had a great influence on Poland, especially after they conquered Prussia. My point is, a very large number of European cultures do indeed have a common denominator: greco/roman/germanic influences, and Christianity.

I would readily welcome Japan in, though I doubt it would ever join, mainly out of national pride.

Then why not Turkey? If Turkey can reform itself the way Japan did after WWII, and become a major liberal Western nation, why can't they be admitted?

Then why not Turkey? If Turkey can reform itself the way Japan did after WWII, and become a major liberal Western nation, why can't they be admitted?
If it can entirely reform itself (including improving Human Rights, recognising ALL EU members and so on), and shake off ALL American influence, then yes, it can. I do not fancy the idea of the USA extending its influence into the EU.

Sweden eventuall adopted the predominant continent culture though didn't it? And the Teutonic Knights had a great influence on Poland, especially after they conquered Prussia.

Not the way you continue to redefine it to exclude Turkey. And we reapproach an earlier argument of mine. There is no predominant European continental culture, unless everything I've ever been taught about Europe is wrong.

The discussion goes so fast
Then why not Turkey? If Turkey can reform itself the way Japan did after WWII, and become a major liberal Western nation, why can't they be admitted?
That everyone overlooked what I posted
Turkey is a secular state by the power of the military. Kemal Mustapha made a secular state but the only way to make sure it would stay that way was by giving the army special powers.
Whenever a muslim party comes to power and is a bit too radical, the Army revolts and starts new elections, the last time this happened was in 1982. Currently the muslim AK party rules but this party has been very careful with religious affairs.
If they join the EU, the Army would loose the power given by Kemal and an extremist muslim party could take over. The west has the impression that Turkey became a modern state in the 20th century but the recent muder of a Italian Christian priest by a radical 16-year old muslim proves that many parts of the Turkish population are still controlled by Islam in their daily life.
Turkey is potentially dangerous as a member of the EU, hence why it shouldnt become a member.

Offcourse there are also such things as the refusal to acknowledge the Armenian massacres. Turkey was also prepared to invade Iraq to make sure the Kurds wouldnt become to powerful after the fall of Saddam, another (recent) problem that speaks against them, as Kurds still dont have the same rights as Turks in Turkey.

If it can entirely reform itself (including improving Human Rights, recognising ALL EU members and so on), and shake off ALL American influence, then yes, it can. I do not fancy the idea of the USA extending its influence into the EU.

Then you should probably kick out the UK.

Then you should probably kick out the UK.
Or its current government.

The discussion goes so fast

That everyone overlooked what I posted

I responded to you. Post #50.

Not the way you continue to redefine it to exclude Turkey. And we reapproach an earlier argument of mine. There is no predominant European continental culture, unless everything I've ever been taught about Europe is wrong.
The UK, Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, Austria, France, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, Holland, Cyprus, Monaco, Denmark and those nations who did accept Byzantine civilisation all have the Greco/roman/germanic civilisation in common.

Like? Most of their cultures derive from Byzantine efforts to civilise Eastern Europe.

Only the Orthodox ones. And even then, remnants of Tatar and Mongol culture are probably just as strong anyway.

Or its current government.

The point is that it's another BS way to keep Turkey out. Like it or not, the US has its hands all over the EU, and that's not going to change. Despite some...drift...in recent years due to a change in attitude in the US, Europe and the United States are very close knit, and it's mostly benevolent. In a perfect world, I would envision a EU-US union as the beginning of a world government.

The point is that it's another BS way to keep Turkey out. Like it or not, the US has its hands all over the EU, and that's not going to change. Despite some...drift...in recent years due to a change in attitude in the US, Europe and the United States are very close knit, and it's mostly benevolent. In a perfect world, I would envision a EU-US union as the beginning of a world government.
Not until the US realises that the EU is better off powerful than weak and fragmented.

The UK, Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, Austria, France, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, Holland, Cyprus, Monaco, Denmark and those nations who did accept Byzantine civilisation all have the Greco/roman/germanic civilisation in common.

Then what of Norway, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Russia?

Only the Orthodox ones. And even then, remnants of Tatar and Mongol culture are probably just as strong anyway.
Mainly due to ethnic cleansing and genocidical practices by the Ottoman Empire in the region, yes.

Russia, although secular, is predominantly orthodox by the way. So is Ukraine.

Not until the US realises that the EU is better off powerful than weak and fragmented.

Like I said. Drift. Hopefully that is rectified in 2008.

Then what of Norway, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Russia?
Russia has powerful influences dating back to the Byzantine Empire. Its language is based on the Cyrillic alphabet and most of its population is still Orthodox Christian. Ukraine, likewise, has very similar influences.

Norway, Sweden and Finland have ancestral links to the Germanic tribes, and also accepted the predominant European civilisation at a point. Hungary and Austria formed a common Empire, Hungary embracing Austria's culture as opposed to squashing it. Bulgaria has always had links with the Byzantine Empire. Finland and Estonia, and at a time Hungary, had their own distinct ways, although they were eventually taken over by the predominant Continental civilisation.

Like I said. Drift. Hopefully that is rectified in 2008.
I would see that happening somewhere nearer to 2050, when the US realises at long last that its being displaced as the dominant economic power.

I would see that happening somewhere nearer to 2050, when the US realises at long last that its being displaced as the dominant economic power.

Not by the EU, though.

Russia has powerful influences dating back to the Byzantine Empire. Its language is based on the Cyrillic alphabet and most of its population is still Orthodox Christian. Ukraine, likewise, has very similar influences.

Norway, Sweden and Finland have ancestral links to the Germanic tribes, and also accepted the predominant European civilisation at a point. Hungary and Austria formed a common Empire, Hungary embracing Austria's culture as opposed to squashing it. Bulgaria has always had links with the Byzantine Empire.

You're forming tenuous links, links that Turkey can maintain as well. The extent to which you are stretching to include these nations in a "European" identity could easily be matched by Turkey.

Not by the EU, though.
By any one potential superpower, including the EU.

You're forming tenuous links, links that Turkey can maintain as well. The extent to which you are stretching to include these nations in a "European" identity could easily be matched by Turkey.
Turkey rejected the predominant European civilisation though, and even attempted to squash it. These nations embraced it.

By any one potential superpower, including the EU.

It's another discussion for another time, but neither the EU nor the US will be the dominant economic world power in the not-to-distant future.

Turkey rejected the predominant European civilisation though, and even attempted to squash it. These nations embraced it.

So, if they were to embrace it now, they would be admitted. Or was embracing European civilization a limited time offer?

It's another discussion for another time, but neither the EU nor the US will be the dominant economic world power in the not-to-distant future.
Unless they converge. Ideally, the West (the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and any nations with similar interests) will converge into one superpower.

So, if they were to embrace it now, they would be admitted. Or was embracing European civilization a limited time offer?
Absolutely. They could become a European civilisation. My point was that the Ottoman Empire was not such though. This is separate to the admission discussion by the way. I was referring strictly to European culture.

Unless they converge. Ideally, the West (the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and any nations with similar interests) will converge into one superpower.

That would be ideal, in my mind. I know many people who would disagree.

Unless they converge. Ideally, the West (the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and any nations with similar interests) will converge into one superpower.

That would be ideal, in my mind. I know many people who would disagree.

Mainly due to ethnic cleansing and genocidical practices by the Ottoman Empire in the region, yes.

Russia, although secular, is predominantly orthodox by the way. So is Ukraine.

The Ottoman empire never breached the Ukraine. Their influence never extended past the Crimea, so they couldn't have. The Ottoman empire as an entity came into being in the early 15th century. By that time, Poland-Lithuania was strong, and the Russians were beginning to emerge as a power. The Ottomans never conquered them. Poland-Lithuania, which covered a huge part of modern European Russia, was a Catholic empire rather than Orthodox, so that rules out Byzantine/Greek cultural dominance - unless you're stating that religion is the only form of culture, which is foolish. And most of the historical architecture in Russia derives from Tatar rather than Roman origins...

I hardly think the individual cultures of these nations can merely be labelled as "Roman" or "Germanic" when they are clearly composed of many other influences.

You're forming tenuous links, links that Turkey can maintain as well. The extent to which you are stretching to include these nations in a "European" identity could easily be matched by Turkey.


Easily matched how? please educate me because apart from conflict and the european powers popping up the Ottomans as a buffer against czarist russia i cannot see what you are pointing at?!?

I suggest we ask europeans on this forum wether they have more in common with each other or the turks? i myself as a european (half german raised in England) have more in common with a russian or the portuguese than i do with turks. Anyhow this irrelevant the bottom line is that the majorty of european citizens does not want turkey to join, reforms or no reforms, it is the politicans that want it, how do you suggest getting around this?

That would be ideal, in my mind. I know many people who would disagree.
Including the vast majority of the US and Japanese populations. They would likely see it as an attempt by Europe to rule the world.

Easily matched how? please educate me because apart from conflict and the european powers popping up the Ottomans as a buffer against czarist russia i cannot see what you are pointing at?!?

I suggest we ask europeans on this forum wether they have more in common with each other or the turks? i myself as a european (half german raised in England) have more in common with a russian or the portuguese than i do with turks. Anyhow this irrelevant the bottom line is that europe does not wnat turkey to join, reforms or no reforms, how do you suggest getting around this?

I don't much care if the EU admits Turkey. But if Turkey does reform itself to match the qualifications that other nations have had to meet for admission, and Europe still declines their membership, then it becomes nothing more than irrational fear of Islam, and you lose any other explanation.

That would be ideal, in my mind. I know many people who would disagree.

By its nature it sounds like it would be US/European-centric. Australia, as a nation with a mere 20 million citizens, would be completely disregarded in it and it would be a return to the old days of colonialism for us.

If we had an impartial federal world government of sorts, it would be a good alternative to the present situation, though.

Including the vast majority of the US and Japanese populations. They would likely see it as an attempt by Europe to rule the world.

And the Europeans would see it as an attempt by the USA to rule the world. Collective paranoia rules the day.

I don't much care if the EU admits Turkey. But if Turkey does reform itself to match the qualifications that other nations have had to meet for admission, and Europe still declines their membership, then it becomes nothing more than irrational fear of Islam, and you lose any other explanation.
However, do note one thing. I said it could become European. In the modern sense. Yes. This means one thing; embracing modern European ideals, such as non-discrimination. If its majority population continues to believe adulterous women should be stoned, or that homosexuality is evil, or that Christians (or any other religions) should be converted to Islam, tough luck. It wants to join a club. Fine. Then it will play by our rules.

I don't much care if the EU admits Turkey. But if Turkey does reform itself to match the qualifications that other nations have had to meet for admission, and Europe still declines their membership, then it becomes nothing more than irrational fear of Islam, and you lose any other explanation.

Irrational or not that is the problem, the europeans (yes of many diverse backgrounds and origins) DO NOT favour the inclusion of a muslim country in the EU for social or/and religious reasons, there are some economic arguments for and against but it remains a clash of culture.

By its nature it sounds like it would be US/European-centric. Australia, as a nation with a mere 20 million citizens, would be completely disregarded in it and it would be a return to the old days of colonialism for us.

If we had an impartial federal world government of sorts, it would be a good alternative to the present situation, though.

It would require some sort of bicameral legislature like the US Congress.

And the Europeans would see it as an attempt by the USA to rule the world. Collective paranoia rules the day.
Nah. I think at this stage the EU will outmatch the USA in both wealth and population. It could be that EU citizens won't realise this, but if they do, then they won't care.

Irrational or not that is the problem, the europeans (yes of many diverse backgrounds and origins) DO NOT favour the inclusion of a muslim country in the EU for social or/and religious reasons, there are some economic arguments for and against but it remains a clash of culture.

Then at that point you become intolerant bigots.

Nah. I think at this stage the EU will outmatch the USA in both wealth and population. It could be that EU citizens won't realise this, but if they do, then they won't care.

I think regardless of the actual circumstances, with the present day mindset we'd all be suspicious of the other group.

By its nature it sounds like it would be US/European-centric. Australia, as a nation with a mere 20 million citizens, would be completely disregarded in it and it would be a return to the old days of colonialism for us.

If we had an impartial federal world government of sorts, it would be a good alternative to the present situation, though.
You are forgetting Japan, a nation of around 200 million citizens I believe. Australia and it have good relations. That would give Australia some vantage point at least.

However, do note one thing. I said it could become European. In the modern sense. Yes. This means one thing; embracing modern European ideals, such as non-discrimination. If its majority population continues to believe adulterous women should be stoned, or that homosexuality is evil, or that Christians (or any other religions) should be converted to Islam, tough luck. It wants to join a club. Fine. Then it will play by our rules.

A modern Islamic state.

Then at that point you become intolerant bigots.
Not necessarily. If the majority of the Turkish population holds beliefs that oppose modern European ideals, and the government does nothing to change this, then we would do well to block entry.

Then at that point you become intolerant bigots.

Become, europe already is, look at the riots in france or the massacre of muslims at Srebrenica.

A modern Islamic state.
A modern Secular state. When it proves itself to be that, then we will embrace it warm-heartedly.

Not necessarily. If the majority of the Turkish population holds beliefs that oppose modern European ideals, and the government does nothing to change this, then we would do well to block entry.

I understand this. But the point is if Turkey does reform and Europe still blocks them, just because of the differences in religion, then they become intolerant. I've just convinced you that; now I need to convince this new guy.

I'm confident enough to say that the point is indisputable. If Turkey does everything to reform themselves economically and culturally to meet Europe's guidelines, but they retain moderate Islam, and Europe still excludes them, they become intolerant.

You are forgetting Japan, a nation of around 200 million citizens I believe. Australia and it have good relations. That would give Australia some vantage point at least.

140 million IIRC.

We may have decent relations, but it won't stop even the Japanese -the world's second or third largest economy - from effectively dominating us. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for internationalism, but a simple "union" isn't going to work. I fear the consequences as our workers are exploited and Australia becomes merely a resource gathering point for nations like Japan. There's going to have to be some way for every citizen of the member countries to be on equal footing with one another.

I understand this. But the point is if Turkey does reform and Europe still blocks them, just because of the differences in religion, then they become intolerant. I've just convinced you that; now I need to convince this new guy.
I had already agreed with you on that. What I did show, however, is that the Ottoman Empire was not European by any qualification, and that modern Turkey needs to take steps forward to became a modern European culture. Differences in religion that are merely nominal are unbased ground for not letting Turkey in; manifest ones, like disrespect towards women, on the other hand, will factor in.

I'm confident enough to say that the point is indisputable. If Turkey does everything to reform themselves economically and culturally to meet Europe's guidelines, but they retain moderate Islam, and Europe still excludes them, they become intolerant.
They have 10 years to prove themselves. Lets see what they can do.

How many more threads do we need on this subject? There is one still ongoing one, now on the 20ith page... :rolleyes:

140 million IIRC.

We may have decent relations, but it won't stop even the Japanese -the world's second or third largest economy - from effectively dominating us. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for internationalism, but a simple "union" isn't going to work. I fear the consequences as our workers are exploited and Australia becomes merely a resource gathering point for nations like Japan. There's going to have to be some way for every citizen of the member countries to be on equal footing with one another.
Slow convergence. Like what is happening now in the EU. At first there will be turmoil, then union will be realised. What worries me is the nations on the outside. China would have absolutely no reason to join such a union, and Russia would definitely feel itself too good to belong to any such club. India, the Arab nations and most of Africa would also be left out. Africa is falling under China's influence, slowly. Such alliances could either bring peace, or create massive wars.

I understand this. But the point is if Turkey does reform and Europe still blocks them, just because of the differences in religion, then they become intolerant. I've just convinced you that; now I need to convince this new guy.

I'm confident enough to say that the point is indisputable. If Turkey does everything to reform themselves economically and culturally to meet Europe's guidelines, but they retain moderate Islam, and Europe still excludes them, they become intolerant.

Ok granted, however it is not just point about religion, the ascession of turkey to the EU would not benefit europe financially as well socially. The EU would be better of completing the inclusion of the remaining eastern european nations and courting Russia that has far far more to offer than Turkey as well (yes here it comes) as having much more in common.

As well economic and social reforms there are questions of Cyprus and the states denial of the holocaust of the Armenians.

Ok granted, however it is not just point about religion, the ascession of turkey to the EU would not benefit europe financially as well socially. The EU would be better of completing the inclusion of the remaining eastern european nations and courting Russia that has far far more to offer than Turkey as well (yes here it comes) as having much more in common.
They are in a similarly bad economic situation, though their small size makes them easier to absorb. Russia indeed has a lot to offer, yet it needs to reform some of its economic and political practices.

As well economic and social reforms there are questions of Cyprus and the states denial of the holocaust of the Armenians.
Exactly. It has to resolve these issues, as well as move towards becoming a fully European state if it wants to join. We will not bend our backs over for them to join. Its their job to make sure they are ready.

I hope Turkey doesn't join the EU, for purely altruistic reasons. The EU is diluting sovereignty, undermining democratically elected national governments and helping to retard the Third World's economic development.

Why would Turkey want to sign up to that?

Exactly. It has to resolve these issues, as well as move towards becoming a fully European state if it wants to join. We will not bend our backs over for them to join. Its their job to make sure they are ready.

In the same way that now Bulgaria and romania have to try reach the criteria's for entry, another example of thos needing to reform politically prior to joining is Serbia-Montenegro, but i do except Sdaeriji argument that prejudice towards Islam is a major factor in the low support for turkeys entry into the EU. There has been a rise in 'islamophobia' (correct term??) that has not been helped by suicide bombings and so forth, that has made the idea of Turkeys entry unpalatable, there is some justifacation in calling the EU a 'christian club' but no one is stopping the islamic world from forming a economic bloc.

I hope Turkey doesn't join the EU, for purely altruistic reasons. The EU is diluting sovereignty, undermining democratically elected national governments and helping to retard the Third World's economic development.

Why would Turkey want to sign up to that?
Isn't Turkey more or less part of the third world? :rolleyes: Its GDP per capita is minimal.

To restate what I said earlier:

Absolutely no. Never. No no no.

Why?
-Dismal economy
-Entirely different culture, very different from the European one (and no, conquering certain European nations for a while does NOT make you European). Many would love to make the Ottoman Empire seem like some kind of multi-cultural paradise. Please. Get real. :)
-Terrible Human Rights record
-Illegal occupation of parts of and non-recognition of an EU member state
-Against the will of the majority of the EU citizenry; France and Netherlands rejected the Constitution partly because of disatisfaction of not having been allowed to vote on Turkey's entry. Again, this alone is enough to say no.
-Large Muslim population, many of which support hardline Islamic beliefs. With the current problems the EU is facing with some of its Muslim populations, exacerbating the problem is an idiotic policy. With its large population it could easily undermine core EU beliefs and erode EU ideological commitments.
-A historical enemy of Russia; Russia would distance itself even more from the EU should Turkey enter. Russia is valuable. Turkey is not. Want cheap labour? Russia has it. Want a large population boost? Again, Russia has it. Want vast resources? Russia. Russia needs to improve its democratic practices, but I would much rather see it than Turkey in the EU. Norway would also distance itself. Not a good idea.
-An American pawn. This alone would have me reject this Trojan Horse ab initio. Until it stops being an American pawn, it should never be allowed entry into the EU.

The EU's expansion is not limitless. Turkey should and, I hope, will not enter. If it does, moving to Norway seems to be a great option.

Essentially, I agree with you. Some of the states the EU is considering acceeding are small states, even if they are poor, and allowing them entry may resolve strong ethnic conflicts in their region. Thus, their accession will cost the EU little and perhaps benefit it much. Allowing a large, poor country in at this point? No.

To be quite frank, this post is the quintessential problem with Europe and the EU as a whole. While America takes flack for indifference towards poor and some how a name for racism, Euorpe is a bastion for intolerance of all kind, from ethnic to religious. Many if not most Europeans would have a difficult time even considering Turkey apart of Europe, and this in many ways fuels their position. EU officals and other European governmental officers have been caught refering to Europe as a Christians only club (and should remain that way) as Turkey would be the first formally dominate muslim nation in Europe. There are as well extreme prejeduces toward Eastern European nations in general..but thats a whole nother topic.

While the issue of economic performance seems like a valid one on its surface, it hardly seems viable since today key players in the EU including, France, Germany, and Italy do not even meet the minimum requirements the EU commission sets out to remain members given their weak economic performances. As well, eastern european nations, including Turkeywhile economically weak, pose a great investment opprotunity and potential for economic growth not only for their country but for all of Europe.. especially since the larger econmies of France and Germnay are largely stagnant.

And let us not forget why the EU was formed in the first place, to make countries within the europe dependant on one another so as to promote cooperation and reduce ethnic tensions (thus reducing the chance of war). This is one primary reason WHY Turkey should be admited.. it would put them on the road to healing old wounds with surrounding nations who hold nothing but the greatest hatrid for them.

As well from a security point of view, Turkey is a central hub by which Muslims (and muslim extremists) enter Europe, including them in the EU and fortifying their boarders would go a long way in steming the flow of extremeism into Europe.

I hope Turkey doesn't join the EU, for purely altruistic reasons. The EU is diluting sovereignty, undermining democratically elected national governments and helping to retard the Third World's economic development.

Why would Turkey want to sign up to that?

Diluting in the interest of common prosperity or would you rather that all our national industries were outstripped and undercut by china? as for third world economic developement all the west (not just europe) is guilty of that.

In the same way that now Bulgaria and romania have to try reach the criteria's for entry, another example of thos needing to reform politically prior to joining is Serbia-Montenegro, but i do except Sdaeriji argument that prejudice towards Islam is a major factor in the low support for turkeys entry into the EU. There has been a rise in 'islamophobia' (correct term??) that has not been helped by suicide bombings and so forth, that has made the idea of Turkeys entry unpalatable, there is some justifacation in calling the EU a 'christian club' but no one is stopping the islamic world from forming a economic bloc.
Indeed. If fear of Islam is the result of its manifest influences on Turkish society, then I will agree with those who block its entry. As you said, the Islamic world could easily form an economic union, and if Turkey does not want to change for the EU, it should join it.

Diluting in the interest of common prosperity or would you rather that all our national industries were outstripped and undercut by china? as for third world economic developement all the west (not just europe) is guilty of that.

O god. How many times to europhiles need to be told that the European Union is no economic panacea? go to globalbritain.org and take a look, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue the case here.

As for your attitude to third world poverty, since when does a policy being widespread make it right?

O god. How many times to europhiles need to be told that the European Union is no economic panacea? go to globalbritain.org and take a look, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue the case here.
Then why bring it up at all?

As for your attitude to third world poverty, since when does a policy being widespread make it right?
He/she never said it's right. They just said that its not something only the EU is doing. And do, pray tell, explain how helping the poor stand on their feet is a bad thing?

...As well from a security point of view, Turkey is a central hub by which Muslims (and muslim extremists) enter Europe, including them in the EU and fortifying their boarders would go a long way in steming the flow of extremeism into Europe.

You will stop the flow of extremism by halting all further muslim migration into europe and further regulating the conduct of Imams and there mosques, remember Islam is not a church, it does not have a central structure that governements can refer to and monitor. While this can be construed as prejudiced i see it as pragmatic.

Whatever you think it has come to the point were terror must be fought without one hand tied behind our back, we either fight or acquiesce, i am not a far right looney infact i fear that that conduct of the militant islamists is pushing more and more europeans towards the far right.

Then why bring it up at all?

Because it's relevant, bit I consider it a waste of my time to spell it out when other people have already done so and their work is freely available.


He/she never said it's right. They just said that its not something only the EU is doing. And do, pray tell, explain how helping the poor stand on their feet is a bad thing?

I never said it was! The European CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) has been acknowledged as the most trade-distorting and damaging agricultural policy in the world, so we can't even claim equality with Japan and America. This EU policy subsidises European agriculture, which means that European consumers have to pay more whilst African countries can't export their cheaper foodstuffs, preventing economic devlopment.

Indeed. If fear of Islam is the result of its manifest influences on Turkish society, then I will agree with those who block its entry. As you said, the Islamic world could easily form an economic union, and if Turkey does not want to change for the EU, it should join it.

And what then are you saying about Islam in your statement here.. you reject Turky's application to the EU because Islamic elements exist in its society ? Islam itself does not denote negative connotations... and shouldn't. If your looking for radical islam.. you need look no further then your own boarders

Many Islamic countries already have an economic block.. its called OPEC. Europe would do well to accept Turkey, they very well maybe the bridge between Europe and the Islamic world at Large, and would go a long way to extending the EU's influence in the region.

And what then are you saying about Islam in your statement here.. you reject Turky's application to the EU because Islamic elements exist in its society ? Islam itself does not denote negative connotations... and shouldn't. If your looking for radical islam.. you need look no further then your own boarders
Please make the effort of reading the past few pages. If Turkey exhibits discriminatory attitudes towards women, gay people etc or continues to practise Human Rights abuses based on Islamic faith, and it does nothing to quell these practices by its citizens, then yes I would flatly reject it. I would not reject it for being Islamic, yet I would reject it for failing to conform with European values. Its our club, our rules.

Many Islamic countries already have an economic block.. its called OPEC. Europe would do well to accept Turkey, they very well maybe the bridge between Europe and the Islamic world at Large, and would go a long way to extending the EU's influence in the region.
As long as Turkey becomes fully European.

Many Islamic countries already have an economic block.. its called OPEC. Europe would do well to accept Turkey, they very well maybe the bridge between Europe and the Islamic world at Large, and would go a long way to extending the EU's influence in the region.

OPEC, an exclusive club for only certain islamic countries, or had Bangladesh, Somalia, etc joined in the last ten minutes?
As for a bridge to the islamic east, we already have plenty of muslims in europe,why cannot they be the bridge by which we learn mutual understanding? why Turkey?

Because it's relevant, bit I consider it a waste of my time to spell it out when other people have already done so and their work is freely available.
Then enlighten us with them.


I never said it was! The European CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) has been acknowledged as the most trade-distorting and damaging agricultural policy in the world, so we can't even claim equality with Japan and America. This EU policy subsidises European agriculture, which means that European consumers have to pay more whilst African countries can't export their cheaper foodstuffs, preventing economic devlopment.
The EU is also helping the nations of Eastern Europe recover from the after effects of the USSR, and is stabilising their economies.

On another note, does anyone think the EU should open its doors to Israel gradually?

The EU is also helping the nations of Eastern Europe recover from the after effects of the USSR, and is stabilising their economies.

Groundless rhetoric! The economies of New Europe were already growing at very fast rates before 2004, so you can't pin that success on the EU. The agricultural subsidies the new members will recieve will also only help to maintain inefficient farms, so their food prices will likely rise.

As for "stabilising" their economies, what does that mean? Locking them into the cycle of decline?

Groundless rhetoric! The economies of New Europe were already growing at very fast rates before 2004, so you can't pin that success on the EU. The agricultural subsidies the new members will recieve will also only help to maintain inefficient farms, so their food prices will likely rise.
Because they were preparing themselves for access to the EU and already had some access to the common market, maybe? :rolleyes: The CAP does indeed need to change, and I agree that the way the budget is as it stands is unacceptable, yet that is nowhere near enough ground to disband the EU.

As for "stabilising" their economies, what does that mean? Locking them into the cycle of decline?
That depends entirely on Europe's future economic policies. Stop assuming that it is unable to change them. It needs reform, indeed. And it will get it. Instead of whining about problems, FIX them. Suggest solutions.

:mad: If it ain't in EUROPE............ It shouldn't be in the EUROPEan union. :confused: Just because they have a tiny, shitty little corner in europe, doesn't make em a european nation. Plus if you go to turkey, you can't even flush your loo roll down the loo, you gotta put it in a smelly little bin. Barbaric!!!!!:

:mad: If it ain't in EUROPE............ It shouldn't be in the EUROPEan union. :confused: Just because they have a tiny, shitty little corner in europe, doesn't make em a european nation. Plus if you go to turkey, you can't even flush your loo roll down the loo, you gotta put it in a smelly little bin. Barbaric!!!!!:
Well we did say they'd have to modernise and become fully European.

Because they were preparing themselves for access to the EU and already had some access to the common market, maybe? :rolleyes: The CAP does indeed need to change, and I agree that the way the budget is as it stands is unacceptable, yet that is nowhere near enough ground to disband the EU.

You can have access to the EU without joining it: it's called a free trade area. Iceland and Norway have free trade with the EU, but without the financial penalites membership would involve.


That depends entirely on Europe's future economic policies. Stop assuming that it is unable to change them. It needs reform, indeed. And it will get it. Instead of whining about problems, FIX them. Suggest solutions.

How can I fix it? Even if every British MEP was a member of my party, that counts for less than 20% of the seats in the European Parliament: hardly enough to effect radical change. Secondly, Europe has a whole has not discarded socialism to the same extent Britain has, so whatever the people of Britain think they can be overruled by the electorates of other countries.

You can have access to the EU without joining it: it's called a free trade area. Iceland and Norway have free trade with the EU, but without the financial penalites membership would involve.
These "penalties" will continue to exist until full convergence takes place; they will then realise into benefits.



How can I fix it? Even if every British MEP was a member of my party, that counts for less than 20% of the seats in the European Parliament: hardly enough to effect radical change. Secondly, Europe has a whole has not discarded socialism to the same extent Britain has, so whatever the people of Britain think they can be overruled by the electorates of other countries.
Neither socialism nor Britain's version of capitalism are ideal for the EU. Many argue the Scandinavian economic system is superior, and equally many also point to Switzerland (read "Why Switzerland?") as an ideal model for the EU economy and political structure. You, specifically, may not be able to fix it. Your government can attempt to do so by making suggestions to the EU that don't involve completely stripping itself apart. The UK could always also leave.

OPEC, an exclusive club for only certain islamic countries, or had Bangladesh, Somalia, etc joined in the last ten minutes?
As for a bridge to the islamic east, we already have plenty of muslims in europe,why cannot they be the bridge by which we learn mutual understanding? why Turkey?

For this question its easy... look at the muslims you have in your countries at present.. you spend so much time trying to intergrate them instead of understand them, you succeed only in isolating them from the rest of your nations.. This could be no more evident then by France's civil unrest. As well Germany and England have large problems with their muslim communities. Turkey would be the one country where islamic tradition is the norm..

Please make the effort of reading the past few pages. If Turkey exhibits discriminatory attitudes towards women, gay people etc or continues to practise Human Rights abuses based on Islamic faith, and it does nothing to quell these practices by its citizens, then yes I would flatly reject it. I would not reject it for being Islamic, yet I would reject it for failing to conform with European values. Its our club, our rules.

This is a most interesting response considering Trukey is a Democratic Parlimentary system. The inadequacies in civil rights are thus seemingly accepted by the public of Turkey, who are you to impose your version of civil rights when the public has spoken ? Europe daily stands and critizes the Bush administration for imposing its moral codes, and values in government and on its citizens, now you suggest the EU should do the same with Turkey and its civil rights ? If Turkey were a despotism or fundamentalist state, your point would hold more water.. but as their representatives are democratically elected.. I fail to see the connection. And when you say your club.. you do mean the Christians only club dont you.. Because Islamic values dont fall in line with your Christian ones. Is this the bastion of tolerance, equality, and humanity Europe claims to uphold ?

This is a most interesting response considering Trukey is a Democratic Parlimentary system. The inadequacies in civil rights are thus seemingly accepted by the public of Turkey, who are you to impose your version of civil rights when the public has spoken ? Europe daily stands and critizes the Bush administration for imposing its moral codes, and values in government and on its citizens, now you suggest the EU should do the same with Turkey and its civil rights ? If Turkey were a despotism or fundamentalist state, your point would hold more water.. but as their representatives are democratically elected.. I fail to see the connection. And when you say your club.. you do mean the Christians only club dont you.. Because Islamic values dont fall in line with your Christian ones. Is this the bastion of tolerance, equality, and humanity Europe claims to uphold ?
Europe stands for certain fundamental Human Rights and certain ideologies, such as non-discrimination. Turkey seeks to join the EU. It thus is aware of these ideologies. We did not invite Turkey to join. It wants to join us. Fair enough. Therefore, it should do all it can to become a fully European nation. If Christian values coincide with what may be called European values (although they don't necessarily), then yes, it should make a step towards them. We want a nation that is equally tolerant and committed to equality and human rights as the EU is. If its considered okay in Turkey to punish a woman for adultery, they should realise this will not fly in the EU. We may be tolerant, but we will not compromise our values. So don't attempt this line of argument. We not only want a democratic nation, we want one committed to similar values as we are. We are the European Union, and accept European nations. To be European means to embrace European ideals. That means it must commit itself to European values and Human Rights, recognise all EU members, modernise itself, reform its economy and become a society committed to equality for all.

I wouldn't mind if GB wanted to join the USA. It would be a kinda humorous full circle effect.

And the British Empire was very influential in global history. So should it be allowed to join the USA, or China, or Australia, or Canada, or any one of the nations it conquered? Or should Spain be able to allow its colonies to join the EU merely because it created them? Turkey has been influential, although in very negative ways.

I wouldn't mind if GB wanted to join the USA. It would be a kinda humorous full circle effect.
Trust me, to a nation so concerned about surrendering its sovereignty, I do not ever see this happening. Though yeah, it would be funny. :p

Good lord no, they're barely European.

i dony know whats gonna happen but i reckon the nexy war is gonna be with iran since they wont stop their nuke program, but what if the whole of Asia backed Iran? It could bring up a kind semi apocalyptic/religous world war, and i dont think anyone wants that?:eek: :sniper:

Good lord no, they're barely European.
They can become European if they want. Otherwise, we retain the right to block entrance to Turkey ad infinitum.

They can become European if they want. Otherwise, we retain the right to block entrance to Turkey ad infinitum.

An entirely acceptable policy to my mind. No Islamic state is European, and frankly, what would Britain, France and Germany procure from their admission beyond more immigrants?

Europe stands for certain fundamental Human Rights and certain ideologies, such as non-discrimination. Turkey seeks to join the EU. It thus is aware of these ideologies. We did not invite Turkey to join. It wants to join us. Fair enough. Therefore, it should do all it can to become a fully European nation. If Christian values coincide with what may be called European values (although they don't necessarily), then yes, it should make a step towards them. We want a nation that is equally tolerant and committed to equality and human rights as the EU is. If its considered okay in Turkey to punish a woman for adultery, they should realise this will not fly in the EU. We may be tolerant, but we will not compromise our values. So don't attempt this line of argument. We not only want a democratic nation, we want one committed to similar values as we are. We are the European Union, and accept European nations. To be European means to embrace European ideals.

You must hear the hipocratic tone in your argument here. You claim to seek tolerance and equality, but you are intolerant to values different from your own... What if tomorrow the EU decided child pornography should not be a punishable offense (in some European nations it actually isn't).. Should then your nation, who in seeking to protect your children infact does punish such pornography be expelled form the EU ? The EU does not seek to establish political or even social lines... but primarly economic ones, and frankly speaking, Turkey offers some attractive economic opprounties (more so then newly accepted Eastern European countries)! Infact it is the very movemet to intergrate politically and socially (passage of EU constitution) which is so fierly being resisted.

An entirely acceptable policy to my mind. No Islamic state is European, and frankly, what would Britain, France and Germany procure from their admission beyond more immigrants?
Turkey is secular, but the vast majority of its population is Islamic. I have no problem with that. So long as they realise what the EU is all about.

On the immigrants bit, well I am sure they would do something to block immigration from Turkey for a while, and make sure that it is reformed enough so as its citizens won't need to emigrate.

[QUOTE=Invidentias]For this question its easy... look at the muslims you have in your countries at present.. you spend so much time trying to intergrate them instead of understand them, you succeed only in isolating them from the rest of your nations.. QUOTE]

Oh so the fact that Hindu's, Sikhs, Bhuddists, Jews and so forth have had no problem settling down, becoming vibrant parts of various nations while still retaining there cultural values is to be ignored!, the non integration of muslims has been and is a two way street, many of the other cultural groups mentioned have broken out of the ghetto mentality and so should muslims, they wish to live in europe they must accept european values, no one is asking that they consume copius amounts of pork and drink red wine for christ sakes.

i dony know whats gonna happen but i reckon the nexy war is gonna be with iran since they wont stop their nuke program, but what if the whole of Asia backed Iran? It could bring up a kind semi apocalyptic/religous world war, and i dont think anyone wants that?:eek: :sniper:
I cannot see Sunni's following a shi'ite lead myself...

Turkey is secular, but the vast majority of its population is Islamic. I have no problem with that. So long as they realise what the EU is all about.

On the immigrants bit, well I am sure they would do something to block immigration from Turkey for a while, and make sure that it is reformed enough so as its citizens won't need to emigrate.

I would rather you answered the other question, why on earth would it benefit the pre-eminent states to do so, the EU really ought to be limited to the stable, advanced and influential states in Western Europe, and, Russia.

You must hear the hipocratic tone in your argument here. You claim to seek tolerance and equality, but you are intolerant to values different from your own... What if tomorrow the EU decided child pornography should not be a punishable offense (in some European nations it actually isn't).. Should then your nation, who in seeking to protect your children infact does punish such pornography be expelled form the EU ? The EU does not seek to establish political or even social lines... but primarly economic ones, and frankly speaking, Turkey offers some attractive economic opprounties (more so then newly accepted Eastern European countries)!
Its spellt hypocritic. Hardly. The EU is moving to becoming a political structure. A federal union, if you will. It's no longer merely an economic union. It's time to face reality, an economic union can only be realised through legislative (as laws dictate the economic system), and consequently, political convergence. This means each nation in the EU will be shaping its policy. We therefore have the right to demand that nations entering the EU comply with our values. And should the EU decide to decriminalise child pornography as you said, it would still have to attempt to get such a decision ratified. Remember, the EU is governed by national representatives, who could at any point block such an attempt.

Infact it is the very movemet to intergrate politically and socially (passage of EU constitution) which is so fierly being resisted.
Because of the prospect of Turkish entry most of the time, as well as disatisfaction with national governments. The EU is in dire need of reform, and the Constitution is in need of much tweaking. Don't infer its rejection to mean an end to convergence. Convergence is continuing, one way or the other. Austria is reviving the Constitution debate to see what went wrong.

I would rather you answered the other question, why on earth would it benefit the pre-eminent states to do so, the EU really ought to be limited to the stable, advanced and influential states in Western Europe, and, Russia.
To spread its influence I suppose, and extend its economic power.

[QUOTE=Invidentias]For this question its easy... look at the muslims you have in your countries at present.. you spend so much time trying to intergrate them instead of understand them, you succeed only in isolating them from the rest of your nations.. QUOTE]

Oh so the fact that Hindu's, Sikhs, Bhuddists, Jews and so forth have had no problem settling down, becoming vibrant parts of various nations while still retaining there cultural values is to be ignored!, the non integration of muslims has been and is a two way street, many of the other cultural groups mentioned have broken out of the ghetto mentality and so should muslims, they wish to live in europe they must accept european values, no one is asking that they consume copius amounts of pork and drink red wine for christ sakes.

I imagine it seems like such a succes because those who havn't conformed have become targets of racial discrimination.. you need look no farther then Germany who is one of the great offenders towards "outsiders" plaguing them with hugh unemployment and a lack of civil services. As well in France where clear inadequacies has been revealed.. You may not ask them to conform to eat pork or drink whine, but you ask them to give up their moral standards by accepting adultery or homosexuality (issues which the PEOPLE have so decided the fate on). Your ulimate problem is you seek Turkey as an outsider, when it is not. It should not have to conform to European ideals because it is ALREADY apart of Europe. Just being apart of the continent should entitle it to some involvement of the economic affairs within the continent. Who are you or any other country to exclude them based on cultural "differences" then claim you promot equality!

I imagine it seems like such a succes because those who havn't conformed have become targets of racial discrimination.. you need look no farther then Germany who is one of the great offenders towards "outsiders" plaguing them with hugh unemployment and a lack of civil services. As well in France where clear inadequacies has been revealed.. You may not ask them to conform to eat pork or drink whine, but you ask them to give up their moral standards by accepting adultery or homosexuality (issues which the PEOPLE have so decided the fate on).
And you honestly think, based on this, that admitting Turkey as it is would do anything to rectify this situation? Would it not exacerbate it?

Your ulimate problem is you seek Turkey as an outsider, when it is not. It should not have to conform to European ideals because it is ALREADY apart of Europe. Just being apart of the continent should entitle it to some involvement of the economic affairs within the continent. Who are you or any other country to exclude them based on cultural "differences" then claim you promot equality!
When these are the values the vast majority of Europe abides by, how is it not an outsider? How can it seek to join the European Union if it is not European in any sense? Why should we change our ways to accommodate Turkey? It seeks to join us. Shouldn't it be willing to show flexibility and change its ways? Should it be allowed to enter if it does not recognise an EU member state? Tolerance only goes so far. Why should we end up being the ones changing our values when it's our Union? EU law overrides national law in some cases, especially the European Convention of Human Rights which specifically attacks all forms of discrimination. If Turkey cannot abide by this, how will it fit in the EU?

[QUOTE=Invidentias]I imagine it seems like such a succes because those who havn't conformed have become targets of racial discrimination.. you need look no farther then Germany who is one of the great offenders towards "outsiders" plaguing them with hugh unemployment and a lack of civil services. As well in France where clear inadequacies has been revealed.. (snip)QUOTE]

Ahhh ands there is the problem because there is a large number within europe that does not consider Turkey european regardless of geographical niceties, i know its strange to comprehend seeing as Georgia,and Armenia are consdiered part of europe but thats the way it is, many demand at least that they confirm the EUROPEAN VALUES, while some reject it outright due to its islamic heritage, rigth or wrong thats the way it is.

As for germany yes there are problems especially in regards to the large turkish minority in the same way there were problems for the large southern european diaspora 20-30 years ago, but this still still does not take the fact that the majority of europeans do not want Turkey to join.

As for the claim of spreading equality lets be realistic, the EU is aiming to create equality for the european nations, it has never claimed to want to spread equality to asia minor or north Africa. Geographical placing does not guarantee inclusion (i.e Israel)..you may call it a christian club but i suspect most europeans would prefer it was just that.

Turkey has always been outsider, since the Seljuks migrated into Anatolia and ever since the turks have perceived as outsiders, once the Hungarians were perceived in a similar way until the acceptance of christianity and gradual acceptance of european cultural aspects changed that perception, this is scenario that the turks cannot embark upon (and rightly so). As i have said before Turkeys application is the whim of politicians and it lacks support from much of the european citizens.

As for the claim of spreading equality lets be realistic, the EU is aiming to create equality for the european nations, it has never claimed to want to spread equality to asia minor or north Africa. Geographical placing does not guarantee inclusion (i.e Israel)..you may call it a christian club but i suspect most europeans would prefer it was just that.
Thank you. That is precisely it. We will not allow entry to a nation that would endanger these values. Thus, if Turkey wants entry, it should show the appropriate flexibility.

And you honestly think, based on this, that admitting Turkey as it is would do anything to rectify this situation? Would it not exacerbate it?


When these are the values the vast majority of Europe abides by, how is it not an outsider? How can it seek to join the European Union if it is not European in any sense? Why should we change our ways to accommodate Turkey? It seeks to join us. Shouldn't it be willing to show flexibility and change its ways? Should it be allowed to enter if it does not recognise an EU member state? Tolerance only goes so far. Why should we end up being the ones changing our values when it's our Union?

Because physically and historically Turkey is and has been a main player in Europe itself. The entire point of the European Union is to better UNIT Europe. Because they dont look like you and act like you.. they should be excluded ? Is this not the very definition of discrimination ?

And yes, Bringing Turkey into the EU WOULD be a step towards recitifiying the divide between the west and the east. I dont doubt you belive strongly in your argument.. but as an outsider my self (American) I cannot help but see the ulimate hipocracy here. This has and always will be the problem with Europeans, the unwillingness to adapt your own culture. This is why America has been so much more successful in intergrating all cultures, becuase ours adapts to the people that enter (melting pot) rather then forcing them to adapt to us. No one should be having to sacrifice their core ideals simply to work together...

Because physically and historically Turkey is and has been a main player in Europe itself. The entire point of the European Union is to better UNIT Europe. Because they dont look like you and act like you.. they should be excluded ? Is this not the very definition of discrimination ?
Read through the first pages to see why history is irrelevant at this point. The goal is to commit to European values. This is something most Eastern European nations are being forced to do as it is, and Turkey will not be exempt. It is not a matter of discrimination, its a matter of integrating with the EU.

And yes, Bringing Turkey into the EU WOULD be a step towards recitifiying the divide between the west and the east. I dont doubt you belive strongly in your argument.. but as an outsider my self (American) I cannot help but see the ulimate hipocracy here. This has and always will be the problem with Europeans, the unwillingness to adapt your own culture. This is why America has been so much more successful in intergrating all cultures, becuase ours adapts to the people that enter (melting pot) rather then forcing them to adapt to us. No one should be having to sacrifice their core ideals simply to work together...
Doesn't the USA have its own very distinct ideas about what democracy and culture are? Oh, and does the US not still have a Christian majority? You have a Constitution protecting your core beliefs; we are on the way to creating one. I would love to see how you would react to those beliefs being violated. And yes, I do believe in my argument, and stand by it. If they want to join the EU they must prove themselves to be a truly modern European nation, just like everyone else has had to. You cannot understand the divide between nations in the EU as it is, and they have much in common with each other already. Bringing in an entirely alien culture could be a catastrophe, especially since convergence is not complete. We have set the condition of joining the EU; respect Human Rights, reform the economy and solve disputes with EU members. We will not bend.

Because physically and historically Turkey is and has been a main player in Europe itself. The entire point of the European Union is to better UNIT Europe. Because they dont look like you and act like you.. they should be excluded ? Is this not the very definition of discrimination ?

And yes, Bringing Turkey into the EU WOULD be a step towards recitifiying the divide between the west and the east. I dont doubt you belive strongly in your argument.. but as an outsider my self (American) I cannot help but see the ulimate hipocracy here. This has and always will be the problem with Europeans, the unwillingness to adapt your own culture. This is why America has been so much more successful in intergrating all cultures, becuase ours adapts to the people that enter (melting pot) rather then forcing them to adapt to us. No one should be having to sacrifice their core ideals simply to work together...

A player yes, as an enemy, as a subject of derision. it has never been partner..the apart from a period in the last centruy when Britain and France propped up the Ottomans as a bulwark against Czarist Russia, but this relationship could hardly be called a partnership. As far benefititng 'unit Europe' we have ongoing expansion into eastern europe and a growing relationship with russia (despite the knocks of Ukraine and so forth).

and who said Europe wanted to bridge the gap between east and west?? we have bridge's to the east, its called the foreign ministries...as regards the meeting of east and west go to Sofia, Budapest, Kiev and so on. As regarding core ideals all EU memberstates have had to conform one way or another so there is a precedent for this that has been applied to 'christian nations'.

and who said Europe wanted to bridge the gap between east and west?? we have bridge's to the east, its called the foreign ministries...as regards the meeting of east and west go to Sofia, Budapest, Kiev and so on. As regarding core ideals all EU memberstates have had to conform one way or another so there is a precedent for this that has been applied to 'christian nations'.
All EU nations have had to compromise greatly, as you noted, as even some of them did not conform with core EU values. We have certain ideologies and we abide by them. We are creating a new culture, and we have set the base values it will comprise of. All nations have to conform to it. The alternative would be a mere economic union with each nation having an entirely disparate culture, but that is no longer what the EU is.

A player yes, as an enemy, as a subject of derision. it has never been partner..the apart from a period in the last centruy when Britain and France propped up the Ottomans as a bulwark against Czarist Russia, but this relationship could hardly be called a partnership. As far benefititng 'unit Europe' we have ongoing expansion into eastern europe and a growing relationship with russia (despite the knocks of Ukraine and so forth).

and who said Europe wanted to bridge the gap between east and west?? we have bridge's to the east, its called the foreign ministries...as regards the meeting of east and west go to Sofia, Budapest, Kiev and so on. As regarding core ideals all EU memberstates have had to conform one way or another so there is a precedent for this that has been applied to 'christian nations'.

Turkey has been an enemy more so then Germany (europes economic leader)? Areyou suggesting you'd be more open to inclusion of Russia then Turkey (despite desparities in a clearly authoritarian democractic system as well as human rights). I never said Turkey should make NO concessions, but Europe as well should make concessions for more effective intergration

And Europe would do well to try and bridge that gap with the islamic world.. if it ever hopes to tackle the growing problem of radical islam in throughout the contient. America maybe hated more, but our muslimi populations are far more in tune with our society then the European counterparts are with theirs

All EU nations have had to compromise greatly, as you noted, as even some of them did not conform with core EU values. We have certain ideologies and we abide by them. We are creating a new culture, and we have set the base values it will comprise of. All nations have to conform to it. The alternative would be a mere economic union with each nation having an entirely disparate culture, but that is no longer what the EU is.

I agree, the EU is already developing culture to some respect, in the sense that on the continent there is a greater feeling of common bonds, bonds that turkey does not have.

Turkey has been an enemy more so then Germany (europes economic leader)? Areyou suggesting you'd be more open to inclusion of Russia then Turkey (despite desparities in a clearly authoritarian democractic system as well as human rights). I never said Turkey should make NO concessions, but Europe as well should make concessions for more effective intergration.
Neither Russia nor Turkey in their current state are able to join the EU. Both would have to make concessions. So long as Turkey concedes to respecting and integrating Human Rights, reforming and modernising its economy and resolving its disputes with EU members, then it will be welcomed in. In that regard, it will become more European. Its officials, being part of a secular government, must promote European ideals. I doubt that this is too much to ask of Turkey. The EU, in turn, will provide it with massive financial aid. All could benefit from a wealthy and democratic Turkey, committed to the European vision.

And Europe would do well to try and bridge that gap with the islamic world.. if it ever hopes to tackle the growing problem of radical islam in throughout the contient. America maybe hated more, but our muslimi populations are far more in tune with our society then the European counterparts are with theirs
Which would hint at cultural integration, no? As well as a respect towards American values and its Constitutional principles.

I agree, the EU is already developing culture to some respect, in the sense that on the continent there is a greater feeling of common bonds, bonds that turkey does not have.
Indeed. The European Convention of Human Rights is one of the first indicators of this culture's emergence.

Which would hint at cultural integration, no? As well as a respect towards American values and its Constitutional principles.

Yes.. but America dosn't acheive cultural intergration in the same manner Europe seeks to. American culture adapts the distinctive cultures of immigrants to include them, at the same time that immigrants adapt to our culture (so the phrase goes, a melting pot). Changes occur equally on both sides and so American culture is constantly changing. Europe seeks intergration by forcing immigrants to bare the burden of adaptation. Perfect example is France.. and making all immigrants FRENCH first.. Frances total inability to acheive this is a testimant to this styles monumental failure, and the wide spread flourishing of radical islamisim throughout Europe only compounds that reality.

Yes.. but America dosn't acheive cultural intergration in the same manner Europe seeks to. American culture adapts the distinctive cultures of immigrants to include them, at the same time that immigrants adapt to our culture (so the phrase goes, a melting pot). Changes occur equally on both sides and so American culture is constantly changing. Europe seeks intergration by forcing immigrants to bare the burden of adaptation. Perfect example is France.. and making all immigrants FRENCH first.. Frances total inability to acheive this is a testimant to this styles monumental failure, and the wide spread flourishing of radical islamisim throughout Europe only compounds that reality.
Ah but the French situation is not the same as abiding by European values. France is a nation with a distinct culture. The EU is (nearly) a federation with certain common principles and ideas. By asking Turkey to modernise itself and become more democratic, we are ensuring that it is compatible with other EU nations. As all EU members, it will have to accept the European Convention on Human Rights, which underlines many of the EU's core ideals, as well as the Treaties of Accession. We won't actually be stripping Turkey of its culture, but rather bringing it in line with EU practices. It is aware of this. It made this commitment when it decided to join. In addition, asking of Turkey to become a vibrant and rich nation so as to avoid a high net emigration is hardly too much to ask in the EU's other context of an economic union. Remember, we are not just talking about immigrants here; we are talking about an entire nation, and a relatively large one at that.

Immigration in the US is also a success due to a respect towards American values and Constitutional principles, so immigrants do in a way bring themselves in line with American practices.

Ah but the French situation is not the same as abiding by European values. France is a nation with a distinct culture. The EU is (nearly) a federation with certain common principles and ideas. By asking Turkey to modernise itself and become more democratic, we are ensuring that it is compatible with other EU nations. As all EU members, it will have to accept the European Convention on Human Rights, which underlines many of the EU's core ideals, as well as the Treaties of Accession. We won't actually be stripping Turkey of its culture, but rather bringing it in line with EU practices. It is aware of this. It made this commitment when it decided to join. In addition, asking of Turkey to become a vibrant and rich nation so as to avoid a high net emigration is hardly too much to ask in the EU's other context of an economic union. Remember, we are not just talking about immigrants here; we are talking about an entire nation, and a relatively large one at that.

Immigration in the US is also a success due to a respect towards American values and Constitutional principles, so immigrants do in a way bring themselves in line with American practices.

The EU suffers that high net immigration right now.. why do you think Germany pushes so hard for expansionism.. becuase it hopes in bringing in the impoverished eastern nations they will be less likely to migrate to Germany.

I dont dismiss that Turkey should have to make some minimal level of concessions culturally financially and socially, however, to expect them to come to on equal terms as other European nations as some posters here suggest is obsurd and dismissive of their own cultural identies.

Economically speaking, Turkey has greater growth prospects then most of Europe with real GDP growth numbers that would make Europes economic leader (Germany) drool. A study by the intermonetary fund put Turkey at the 7th fastest growing nation in terms of GDP.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2005/050505.htm
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=33217

I also find it rather interestnig that the EU would be so stringent on these economic bars while many of the EU's most prominent members including Italy,France and GErmany barely if EVEN meet the minimium requirement themselves. Also, the economic in Turkey is seemingly far more hopeful then Greece (on of those EU members turkey would have to reconcile with) whose economy is on the bring of emplosion it seems.

To suggest Turkey should NOT be included at all in the EU seems to be close minded. Of course there is work to be done, I would not deny, but I suspect Turkey will be a member within this decade give its tremendous strides.

The EU suffers that high net immigration right now.. why do you think Germany pushes so hard for expansionism.. becuase it hopes in bringing in the impoverished eastern nations they will be less likely to migrate to Germany.
Possibly. Expansion could be for any number of reasons.

I dont dismiss that Turkey should have to make some minimal level of concessions culturally financially and socially, however, to expect them to come to on equal terms as other European nations as some posters here suggest is obsurd and dismissive of their own cultural identies.
Not minimal. Enough to ensure they abide by the core European values and respect Human Rights. They are not sacrificing their culture, they are tuning in with other EU nations who have had to make similar sacrifices.

Economically speaking, Turkey has greater growth prospects then most of Europe with real GDP growth numbers that would make Europes economic leader (Germany) drool. A study by the intermonetary fund put Turkey at the 7th fastest growing nation in terms of GDP.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2005/050505.htm
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=33217

I also find it rather interestnig that the EU would be so stringent on these economic bars while many of the EU's most prominent members including Italy,France and GErmany barely if EVEN meet the minimium requirement themselves. Also, the economic in Turkey is seemingly far more hopeful then Greece (on of those EU members turkey would have to reconcile with) whose economy is on the bring of emplosion it seems.

To suggest Turkey should NOT be included at all in the EU seems to be close minded. Of course there is work to be done, I would not deny, but I suspect Turkey will be a member within this decade give its tremendous strides.
Indeed, Turkey is experiencing rapid growth, though this is because its economy has recently undergone massive reforms. Many of the poorer eastern states are also enjoying huge growth rates. They will for a while longer. They must then begin investing this money in their nation to bring it up to par with the wealthier EU nations. Turkey should also do so. Its GDP per capita is way below most EU nations, so efforts to improve its economy would do much to its credit. Also, Germany, Italy and France's GDPs account for a massive proportion of the EU's economy. It's not as simple as growth rates. Their economies are in dire need of reform either way. I hope the EU sees their weaknesses and introduces a more favourable economic regime for the Euro-zone. The EU has to be stringent on new members to ensure things don't get worse. BTW, Turkey and Greece are not that much at conflict as they used to be. The real problem situation is Cyprus, which Turkey refuses to recognise as a nation, let alone an EU member. If it joins, it'll have to change that attitude. Cyprus would have reason to veto its entry if Turkey continued non-recognition.

Turkey will enter the EU if it can reform itself and successfully carry out the work it must do. If within a decade it has not managed this, it will have to wait until it does.